Skip to main content

About your Search

20121007
20121007
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
at the international trading environment and worry about that. this is the answer to your question. a world and which the united states is strong but all of the institutions is eroding is not a world of 2011. the united states has an interest in trying its best to shore up institutions. >> this is great. >> get set to run it, john. >> a couple of quick points. my thesis is not the institutions are independent. they are instruments of power. they are used to signal limits on power. power is never divorce from institution. a venture that regard, i idea that the united states has been so brilliant for half a century or longer because, it has allowed it to make the power more durable and expensive but also making it more delimited and less based on arbitrary use of power and the most traditional sense. there are a vehemence of republican allow for the state to be more influential by allowing it to signal its own strength. a couple of more point about this. my underlying argument is that we are shifting from one organized around trilateral world, the u.s. rip germany, japan, the kind of trilateral system.
. if the national environment is destroyed, then it is really bad, and not just for our own investment, but for the area in general. at the beginning, i thought i would get involved in the fight against it, that i would not go along with it, but now, i am having my doubts. i wonder whether things are not better as they stand a if would be better off moving away. >> of course, that is not with this conservationist wants, but more and more manor houses on her map are marked in pink, indicating that they are in serious condition. >> recently, one of the manor houses had disappeared completely. there was just a heap of stones. fear that in the next five or 10 years, and aiding houses will be beyond repair. >> it could soon be dotted with ruins, ruins with a certain melancholic charm for sure, but hardly evidence of the prosperity that east germans were promised after unification. >> that brings us to the end of this edition of "european journal" from dw studios in brussels. from all of us here, thanks very much for watching. until next nine -- until next time, bye for now! captioned by the
. the environment has gotten such a got you environment that even the politicians themselves and regulators have to do their business with one eye over the shoulders for fear of being dragged into some congressional committee or they'll be exposed for having to talk to leaders. so i think this idea of working together, i think in order to allow people to work together, there has to be a little bit of a letup. another thing is you can't kill people if everything doesn't work out perfectly. who the heck is going to take the jobs in business and government. you'll always get people that want to be ceo and senator and cabinet secretaries, but it might not be the people you want if you make it so punishing for them to take the job and unsustainable to be in the job because who gets it right all the time? >> that's actually an important distinction. john chambers and i were talking about it. in business, you take risks. some of them work out. some of them don't. in government, it's very difficult to take risks because if something goes badly, you're going to get pilloried for it. there's no particular
are not just the risks we take. the environmental is such a "got you" environment even the regulators have to do their business with one eye over the shoulders for fear of being dragged over the national committee and having to be skboesed to talk to leaders. i think in order to allow people to work together, there has to be a little bit of a let-up. another thing is you can't kill people if everything doesn't work out properly. who the heck is going to take the job whether in business or otherwise. it might not be the people you want if you make it so punishing for them to take the job and so unsustain tobl be in the job because who gets it right all the time? >> that's actually an important distinction. john chal bers and i wither talking about it. in business, you asigh you take risks. some of them work out. some of them don't. in government, it's very difficult to take risks because if something goes badly, you're goingo get pilleried for it. the balance that you worry about is very different, right? >> it is. business has an advantage that we know if we don't take risks, there's low c
regulatory environment, as bank took a look at his business plan and said here is your problem -- you are asset rich and cash poor. he said i know that, if i had the cash it would not be here for a loan. he would have to over collateralize a loan by 150% under the current regulatory environment. i want him to be able to grow his business. it's a classic example of regulation killing jobs. we need to make sure we have the proper amount of legislation but not overregulation. my commercials talk about reducing spending, and powering our work force for training for jobs available and developing a comprehensive energy policy to put our people back to work, energy independence to protect our environment. >> 30 seconds to rebut. >> you have been running some of the most deceitful attack at the state has ever seen. don't try to pretend that has not been what's happening in that race. when your campaign was asked why you don't start talking about the issues, your campaign manager said it would be a senseless exercise. that's right. for linda mcmahon talking at the issues of be a senseless exer
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)